Clone a Proxmox VM, container, or template to a new VMID with optional full copy and target node/storage settings. Requires confirmation.
Clone a VM/container or template into a new VMID. Requires confirm=true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| full | No | ||
| kind | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| node | No | ||
| vmid | Yes | ||
| wait | No | ||
| newid | Yes | ||
| confirm | No | ||
| timeout | No | ||
| target_node | No | ||
| target_storage | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds the genuinely useful confirm=true prerequisite, but says nothing about the resulting VM state, linked vs. full clone semantics, or that wait/timeout control polling — notable gaps for a provisioning mutation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and ending with the hard precondition. No waste, but brevity here edges into under-specification rather than purely efficient writing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 11 parameters at zero schema coverage and no output-schema explanation needed, the description should at minimum explain the clone mode and targeting parameters. As written an agent could call it, but would likely mis-set full/kind/target_storage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% across 11 parameters, so the description carries the full burden — yet it only clarifies confirm. Key decision parameters (full, kind, target_node, target_storage, wait, timeout) are left completely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (clone) and resource (VM/container or template) plus the output (new VMID), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like pve_update_vm or pve_delete_vm. The purpose is clear, though it does not differentiate from a hypothetical create tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The only guidance is the confirmation precondition (confirm=true). There is no statement of when to use clone vs. creating a fresh VM, whether the source must be a template or stopped guest, or any exclusion — the agent must infer all of that.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.